The subject of this article is controversial and content may be in dispute. When updating the article, be bold, but not reckless. Feel free to try to improve the article, but don't take it personally if your changes are reversed; instead, come here to the talk page to discuss them. Content must be written from a neutral point of view. Include citations when adding content and consider tagging or removing unsourced information.
Please stay calm and civil while commenting or presenting evidence, and do not make personal attacks. Be patient when approaching solutions to any issues. Ifconsensus is not reached, other solutions exist to draw attention and ensure that more editors mediate or comment on the dispute.
Eugenics was one of the good articles, but it has been removed from the list. There are suggestions below for improving the article to meet the good article criteria. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.
Eugenics is within the scope of WikiProject Disability. For more information, visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.DisabilityWikipedia:WikiProject DisabilityTemplate:WikiProject DisabilityDisability articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Discrimination, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Discrimination on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.DiscriminationWikipedia:WikiProject DiscriminationTemplate:WikiProject DiscriminationDiscrimination articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Autism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of all aspects of autism and autistic culture on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.AutismWikipedia:WikiProject AutismTemplate:WikiProject AutismAutism articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Molecular Biology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Molecular Biology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Molecular BiologyWikipedia:WikiProject Molecular BiologyTemplate:WikiProject Molecular BiologyMolecular Biology articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject History, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the subject of History on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.HistoryWikipedia:WikiProject HistoryTemplate:WikiProject Historyhistory articles
This article is part of the History of Science WikiProject, an attempt to improve and organize the history of science content on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion. You can also help with the History of Science Collaboration of the Month.History of ScienceWikipedia:WikiProject History of ScienceTemplate:WikiProject History of Sciencehistory of science articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Sociology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of sociology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SociologyWikipedia:WikiProject SociologyTemplate:WikiProject Sociologysociology articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Anthropology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Anthropology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.AnthropologyWikipedia:WikiProject AnthropologyTemplate:WikiProject AnthropologyAnthropology articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Philosophy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of content related to philosophy on Wikipedia. If you would like to support the project, please visit the project page, where you can get more details on how you can help, and where you can join the general discussion about philosophy content on Wikipedia.PhilosophyWikipedia:WikiProject PhilosophyTemplate:WikiProject PhilosophyPhilosophy articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Women's History, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Women's history and related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Women's HistoryWikipedia:WikiProject Women's HistoryTemplate:WikiProject Women's HistoryWomen's History articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Skepticism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of science, pseudoscience, pseudohistory and skepticism related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SkepticismWikipedia:WikiProject SkepticismTemplate:WikiProject SkepticismSkepticism articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Abortion, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Abortion on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.AbortionWikipedia:WikiProject AbortionTemplate:WikiProject AbortionAbortion articles
Text and/or other creative content from Eugenics was copied or moved into History of eugenics with this edit. The former page's history now serves to provide attribution for that content in the latter page, and it must not be deleted as long as the latter page exists.
Resident evil mentioned in opening paragraph, but not in the popular culture section.[edit]
I would like to point out that the opening paragraph for this article mentions the video game series Resident evil, but the "In popular culture" section does not. I wish for this inconsistency to be resolved, but I do not know the depth to go into without getting off topic. I leave this as something for wikipedians to discuss. 98.181.69.7 (talk) 19:25, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There is no "In Popular Culture" section, nor does there need to be. It's not an inconsistency. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 22:41, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"... Lee urged highly educated women to have more children, claiming that "social delinquents" would dominate unless their fertility rate increased" Come again?? On what way would the increased fertility rate of these "social delinquents" decrease their dominance? Perhaps: "Lee urged highly educated women to have more children to counteract the domination of "social delinquents"" - or similar. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 115.70.29.185 (talk) 01:40, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I invite Biohistorian15 to discuss their preferred edits here. In my view, removing "Nazi eugenics", "Bibliography of genocide studies", and "Outline of genocide studies" from the See also and describing Eugenics as a "field of study" represent a substantive POV-shift which would require consensus. Generalrelative (talk) 08:06, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, I was just thinking about opening a thread myself. Maybe I am mistaken but please explain which of the following assumptions was in error:
(1) A point that already has a whole eponymous section with reference a la "main article: ..." below the heading does not need to be brought up in the "see also" section
(2) If two topics are not (non-controversially) the same - considering e.g. positive eugenics most prominently (!) -, one does not reference a separate bibliography from the already expansive one in the main article. Biohistorian15 (talk) 08:13, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Aha, I see my error in both cases and retract my comments. I'll self-revert. Thanks for unpacking this for me. Generalrelative (talk) 08:22, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hey, thank you! Sorry for the accusation in that case. Biohistorian15 (talk) 08:24, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No stress. In actual fact I was being far too hasty. Generalrelative (talk) 08:29, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Exempt/Recover certain threads from "Lowercase sigmabot III" Archiving?[edit]
Some discussions (e.g. whether eugenics is supposed to be called "pseudoscientific" or not etc. ...) have opened up multiple times and are arguably not fully resolved. Would it be possible to keep a lot of these on the talk page indefinitely, and if so how? Biohistorian15 (talk) 08:21, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I would suggest bringing this to WP:FTN to see if there is wider community interest in reevaluating the longstanding language. Not sure it makes sense to selectively keep certain threads from being archived. Generalrelative (talk) 08:30, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Nah. If discussions go idle, they can be archived. If the question isn't fully resolved and it becomes important to resolve it, we can go through WP:DR or create an WP:RFC to deal with it then. Otherwise, there's no reason to have those discussions just permanently pinned here. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 12:58, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Some discussions (e.g. whether eugenics is supposed to be called "pseudoscientific" or not etc. ...) have opened up multiple times and are arguably not fully resolved.
They absolutely have been resolved, WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT notwithstanding. The scientific consensus is that eugenics is a pseudoscience because it is not founded on the basic principles of scientific inquiry. Brusquedandelion (talk) 00:39, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, no. Considering that this is one of the most controversial wiki articles out there: I don't believe all the discussions have been resolved to the point that there is really no content disputes on this talk page whatsoever. Biohistorian15 (talk) 07:59, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Then provide the suggestion for improving the article. Otherwise this isn't going to accomplish anything. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 10:17, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I will, in fact, commit myself to improving the article over the next few weeks. For this purpose, I think, just importing archived arguments in relevant discussions as a blockquote should do for now... Biohistorian15 (talk) 11:02, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Would probably be more effective if you made your points in your own words, rather than just quoting someone else's. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 13:29, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Apply boldface to "positive" and "negative eugenics"?[edit]
Otherwise, we might well have to make it a whole subsection for people to link to (as opposed to an anchor with intuitive relevance per the emboldened terms...) Biohistorian15 (talk) 16:24, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
To the common distinction between "pos." and "neg. eugenics" as found in the article; it used to be boldface some time ago. Biohistorian15 (talk) 18:10, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hm. I don't think it's necessary to boldface those terms. They're italicized in a few spots, but after that it seems fine to just leave them be. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 18:13, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, you're probably right. I'll consider creating a new section with terminology/etymology in the future.Biohistorian15 (talk) 17:47, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I invite HandThatFeeds to please specify their reasons for not including my clarifications about a well-known book that is otherwise easily misinterpreted. Biohistorian15 (talk) 17:52, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
First off, as I mentioned, the prose you added did not match Wikipedia's WP:MOS and read more like an essay.
Second, the citation added was a paper whose author asserted their personal opinion and interpretation of the book as part of the CRISPR debates. There is nothing to demonstrate this is WP:DUE for the Eugenics article itself, nor that the author or the paper are a reliable source for the topic. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 18:29, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree with your assessment of the citation, but anyhow: would it help if I moved parts of the quote to a note and solely relied for my clarification on an in-text quote from BNW itself instead? Biohistorian15 (talk) 07:31, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I honestly don't think the citation is due for inclusion in this article at all. It might be relevant to Brave New World but, as a primary source, that would be iffy. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 15:57, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
level-5 vital article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
,_early_1900s,_Central_Africa,_Democratic_Republic_of_the_Congo,_Pende_people,_wood,_fiber_-_Cleveland_Museum_of_Art_-_DSC08700.JPG){kind=small}
